Marx Brothers

Submitted by Tomas Kierstein (Denmark) (Denmark), Jan 11, 2008 at 05:00

Dear Dr. Pipes

Without wanting to sound arrogant, I must claim that many contemporary European Conservatives, like yours truly, are in no way strangers to thoughts like that. Nor are these thoughts in any way in contrast to what the - luckily - very few ideologically selfconscious Nazis in Europe claim and admit about themselves.

As a matter of fact, the homepage for the Nazi movement in Denmark, known as the DNSB, informed ( maybe still does) readers about this in an introduction, made by their leader, a Mr. Jonni Hansen. Roughly translated (from my two year old notes combined with memory), he writes:

'Is National Socialism a right wing movement? Naturally not. Why else would we call ourselves Socialists? We are a revolutionary movement. We are a branch of that political tradition, which was spawned by the left side (hence the name) of the French Parliament during the days of The French Revolution. The only difference between us and the red left is, that we have substituted the paradigme of class with that of race. The race equals the nation. Thus we are essentially racial socialists.'

I must admit that I do not know if the text still excists on their homepage, as I have only payed one visit to it, a couple of years ago, as part of the preparations for a lecture on why National Socialism is indeed Socialism, and why it (red as well as brown issue) and Islam should be viewed as potential allies, and by no means as adverseries.

That calls for a small resumè of my lecture:

I agree with how Russell Kirk`s describe the original Anglo-American Conservatives, because it is in effect the classical conservative point of view :

"Any informed conservative is reluctant to condense profound and intricate intellectual systems to a few portentous phrases;
he prefers to leave that technique to the enthusiasm of radicals. Conservatism is not a fixed and immutable body of dogma,
and conservatives inherit from Burke a talent for re-expressing their convictions to fit the time. As a working premise,
nevertheless, one can observe here that the essence of social conservatism is preservation of the ancient moral traditions.
Conservatives respect the wisdom of their ancestors...; they are dubious of wholesale alteration. They think society is a
spiritual reality, possessing an eternal life but a delicate constitution: it cannot be scrapped and recast as if it was a machine."

In my view special emphasis should be put upon this part of the quotation:

"Conservatism is not a fixed and immutable body of dogma".

Hence, the content is not fixed, but flexible when it comes to all practical matters, while rooted in tradition when it comes to ethics. Dogmas are all right, but they should be open for interpretation; i.e: the moral obligation to be compassionate towards the poor depends on what poor means today. Applying yesterdays methods wouldn`t help a whole lot.

That is exactly what dogmas are in a Christian mindset (The law should serve Man, not the other way around.), while the dogmas of all socialist variations and those of Islam share the common feature, that their dogmas are tabus; rigid definitions of conduct and social order, claimed to be valid in all times and at all places.

Ideologers want to solve every problem with a system, but as the premises will perpetually change with new inventions, they face an ungoing dialectical collapse. The inevitable response, if they wish to retain their identity as believers, is bound to be one involving forced designing of the premises to fit the ideology, and thus a growing need to put a sock in the mouth of Science. That is is the essence of political correctness, wheather it is called so or it is called "Dialectical Materialism", "Sharia Law" or "Aryan Supremacy".

That is why I gladly agree to be called a Reactionary Conservative by Liberals, Socialists and Muslims. I react in accordance with reality, whereas they all wish to shape reality to fit their obsolete ideas.

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".